In my first post of 2014 I introduced the topic of the ugly feminist. As I explained at the time, this is an old charge but is typically aimed at the superficial instead of the core problem. Feminists are ugly because the philosophy of feminism is ugly. It is based on avoiding caring for others and being miserly with love. Several commenters pointed out that this is a devastating charge against feminism, as they could see no viable counter argument for it.

For Christians of course the answer should have always been obvious. The feminist mindset is the opposite of what the Apostle Peter explains is beautiful to God. Even so, I was curious as to how feminists would try to deny the obvious. What I observed over the year as I continued to write about the topic is a continuation of strategy which first appeared in response to the topic. When feminists are faced with this charge, they trip over themselves to describe themselves as the opposite of feminist. Shell was the first to demonstrate the pattern. Keep in mind, Shell is (was) here to argue the merits of feminism:

…frankly, I do not think it is possible to dialog with people who write posts like “Feminists are ugly” and those who use this as an opportunity to unload their misogyny and personal unhappiness it has created in their lives.

So how did Shell respond to the charge that feminists are ugly? She did so by explaining that while she is a feminist, she delights in her role as a very traditional wife:

I have been a stay-at-home mom most of my married life, at a certain point starting my own business to help my husband supplement our income and to do what I’ve always loved to do. He works very hard to be an excellent provider for us and has been doing it for years. Now that the kids are grown, we both have our own businesses and help each other running them when necessary. We are together 24/7 and this allows us plenty of opportunities for great sex, which has only become better since the kids left home.

Not that you will have to believe me, but I am thin and elegant, always taking good care of myself for my husband’s and my own pleasure. He likes that, very much. I also cook, clean, shop, mend our clothes and occasionally make them. I take pleasure in that, although I don’t think this is such a big deal. My husband never cooks, BTW (nor cleans), I don’t think he even knows how to, but he likes watching me do it (oh, and how). We have a fruit and vegetable garden, and we still can our harvest, although less than we used to.

This is the power of the observation that feminism is ugly. The most hard boiled feminists suddenly feel compelled to describe themselves as the opposite of feminist in order to distance themselves from the undeniable ugliness of the feminist mindset. This power is so strong it even compelled a player to white knight for a feminist friend on a later post.

Eventually the original post must have attracted the attention of feminists on the web, as feminists started showing up to deny the charge. As with Shell the common response was to morph into a modern day June Cleaver when confronted with the ugliness of feminist miserliness. Commenter Dude explained:

You silly bugger. I am female, a feminist, and I bake bread every day, make dinner and lunch every day, home-made soup twice a week and brunch on Sundays.

Dude kept her feminist bona fides in tact by explaining that she does all of this while also being the breadwinner.

The pattern continued, with Dawn and Karley Heiman arriving to defend feminism on the grounds that feminists don’t have any objection to women performing the roles of cooking and cleaning. inmynuddypants arrived and was inspired to tell us about her desire to please the man in her life:

I feel so sorry that you have met so many cruel feminists. Let me assure you that we are not all this way. I not only made my boyfriend dinner tonight, but I fully plan on sucking his dick later. And I don’t think that feminism is suffering at all because of it! 🙂

The problem of course is while the women are able to distance themselves from the ugliness of feminism with these tactics, it is disingenuous to claim that feminism isn’t hostile to women cooking and cleaning for their families, or to the idea of a wife satisfying her husband sexually. Feminism is deeply antagonistic to these ideas, despite the fact that individual feminists tend to compete to outdo each other in how much they love cooking for, cleaning for, and pleasuring their men when the ugliness of feminism is pointed out.

I continued on with the theme throughout the year, wondering if I would ever see a truly different response as I continued to provoke feminists with the ugly truth. But the pattern never changed from the special version of Dalrock’s law I describe above. My last post on the topic covered Jessica Valenti’s ugliness at the Guardian, where Valenti spewed feminist venom at Christmas:

We all know that women do the majority of domestic work like child care, housework and cooking. But the holidays bring on a whole new set of gendered expectations that make the season less about simply enjoying fun and family and more about enduring consumerism, chores and resentment so that everyone else can enjoy rockin’ around the Christmas tree. (I bet even Mrs Claus gets upset that Santa works one night a year but she’s dealing with hungry elves 24/7. That would be almost enough to make you want to over-indulge in eggnog and hurl yourself in front of a reindeer-pulled sleigh.)

Valenti is the founder of the feminist site Feministing, and is arguably the poster child for the ugly feminist. She also wrote a book on motherhood from a feminist perspective shortly after having her daughter. Feminist Jesse Ellison at the Daily Beast was disappointed in Valenti’s book because after making the standard feminist complaints about motherhood Valenti never got around to making the case for motherhood:

The problem is, she never convincingly argues the opposite point, which means she never actually answers her question—or my own. There’s no doubting what decision she made; it’s right there in the subtitle: A New Mom Explores the Truth About Parenting and Happiness. What we don’t know is how she got there.

More recently Valenti has written about her multiple abortions, while also complaining that she wasn’t able to have as many children as she wished to have.

My Christmas post on Valenti’s ugly feminism inspired manosphere tag-along Bodycrimes to try her hand at defending feminism from the charge of ugliness. However, before defending feminism Bodycrimes of course explained that she personally found herself responding to Christmas by feeling gratitude at the engineering wonders men have provided her. She does this with feminist sarcasm, but she nevertheless starts by positioning herself as deeply grateful for the work of men:

And this miracle of engineering was made possible, for the most part, by men.

Oh, sure, there are women here toiling away with mops and – since Germany has a fair contingent of female engineers – it’s possible one of them had a hand in choosing the drapes.

By and large, however, us passengers are enjoying the fruits of a male enterprise.

Am I grateful to the unknown men who made it possible for me to speed safely towards Scandinavia for Christmas?

Does it lift my spirits to partake of a miracle of engineering that rivals flying in its complexity and comfort?

Am I enjoying the free box of Christmas chocolates?

Sod off.

I’m a feminist.

After first protecting herself from the charge of being an ugly feminist, Bodycrimes then focused on trying to defend feminism. To her credit, most feminists stop at protecting themselves from the charge, so even though her defense of feminism is quite weak she should at least get credit for trying. Bodycrimes explains that when Valenti was decrying traditional gender roles, Valenti wasn’t being a feminist, she was being British:

What’s particularly galling is that Valenti wasn’t even talking from a politically correct feminist standpoint. She probably just wrote that article after The Guardian rang round its writers, needing someone to take on extra Christmas Complaint duties.

See, what the Christian Taliban don’t get – being optimistic, sunny-natured Americans as they are – is that complaining is integral to the British Christmas. It’s an ancient tradition that probably dates to the first time the druids found their carefully-planned Solstice rituals ruined because some pillock forgot the mistletoe.

This might make a bit more sense (but still not much) if Valenti were British and not an American. But even then, the entire form of Valenti’s screed is feminist from beginning to end. At best, Bodycrime’s claim would explain why a British paper was so willing to run a miserly feminist post about Christmas. If all miserly posts about Christmas are welcome, then Valenti’s year round miserly approach fits right in at Christmas. But even this explanation fails, because Valenti is a regular at the Guardian and her miserly feminist approach is welcome the rest of the year as well.

I look forward to another year of writing about the folly of miserliness, and the astounding power such posts have to make even the most hard boiled feminists appreciate the patriarchy and fervently desire to cook, clean, and care for others.

143 Responses to A year of ugly feminists

There is a progression. The three cardinal things are Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. In that order.

Feminism is ugly because it is so profoundly a fraud, and evil, that it mars the beauty. It dwells in Barad-Dur, not in Gondor.

However I am compelled to rewind far enough to note that “feminist” has multiple meanings. I write this from “The Equality State”, which gave women the right to vote before the Constitution did. At a pioneer museum it becomes clear when both the husband and wife shot their own coyote with their own guns as visible in the picture with their offspring in the frame. Annie Oakley was part of Buffalo Bill’s show.

Even Camille Paliga has talked of an Alaskan wife that saved the crew of a shipwreck – who had a very large number of children at the time.

“I am woman, hear me roar”… sorry dear, that is redundant. The Distaff has it’s own plenary power. You take care of your part and I will do mine. We are equal but different, as God himself has designed and decreed. I accept your womanhood as you accept my manhood.

“I am woman, hear me whine”… is what the feminists do. When women become mothers men hold them in awe. When they simply whine, they are subject to the strictures of equality.

Truth will produce and refine the good.

The good will produce and refine the beautiful.

But lies will produce evil, which will produce the ugly.

The only question about (gender) feminism’s ugliness is whether it is intrinsic or accidental.

God Bless you and yours for the Holidays and best wishes for a prosperous 2015.

They may drop the long sword,but daggers are concealed behind the shield.
Total surrender to God’s will,or a husband’s will requires dropping the shield of false pretense and security.

There is only one path to integrity,and that requires unabashed honesty,something of which most women are constitutionally incapable.
In all fairness,in this time of falling away,most men lack this integrity also.
No natural affection,seeking the double minded reprobate mind as a vehicle to personal gain.

I look forward to the article next Christmas, written by a British man, where he complains that his wife isn’t doing enough work preparing the house for Christmas while he works extra hours at his dead-end job to afford the gifts.

I’m sure Bodycrimes will have absolutely no problem with this since the writer is British and it’s “traditional” for Brits to complain around Christmas.

You know that you’ve hit your mark as a rhetorician when your opponent throws himself headlong into the trap you set and proves your point for you. One of my God-given talents is the ability to do that to atheists (actual or functional)… and I do it a lot.

Dalrock has been doing the same to feminists good and hard this year: he calls feminism ugly, and the only arguments feminists can advance to dispute the charge prove it instead.

Your analysis of the ugly feminist is both thoughtful and true to life.

I love the phrase ‘Christian Taliban’ that is often used to describe anyone opposing the disgusting nature of the Modern Age. Its cute. Especially as I am sure its user thinks the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the same thing. Perhaps the stereotype is ‘ugly ignorant feminist’

Excellent article Brother Dalrock, and a Happy and Prosperous 2015 to you, and all the other readers and participants here.

More recently Valenti has written about her multiple abortions, while also complaining that she wasn’t able to have as many children as she wished to have.

Well, that’s certainly someone I want to take personal advice from: An individual too stupid to use any of the four hundred and fifty low-cost, no hassle methods of birth control widely available to people in the USA, and who resorted to vacuuming her children down the garbage disposal, time after time, because of her own irresponsibility and failure to plan for the future. Yes, a real spokesperson for my generation she is, ladies and gentlemen. Behold the (wo)Man!

I’m off to read all her well-reasoned arguments now, and soak in her wise teachings.

Notice how she identifies as a feminist and then later in the post does everything to describer herself as someone who is “traditional” and whose daily activities and desires are in complete opposition to modern day feminism.

“The problem of course is while the women are able to distance themselves from the ugliness of feminism with these tactics, it is disingenuous to claim that feminism isn’t hostile to women cooking and cleaning for their families, or to the idea of a wife satisfying her husband sexually. ”

Senor Dalrock. . .
What these types of posts are really doing is not so much the women bragging about what they supposedly are, but bragging about what ‘unreasonable, misogynistic’ men like us will supposedly miss out on. It’s simply “You just can’t get laid!” bumped-up a notch.

Ah, yes. The supposed ultimate “check, and mate” (attempt at) shaming language used by a feminist:
Claiming that the male who is “attacking” (read: attempting to educate) them is obviously single (and therefore sexless). It is the usual “full guns a’blazing” defensive-attack that feminist womin love to use. It seems, though, that basic shelling is no longer sufficient; simply trying to blow your enemy to pieces isn’t enough. You must also now shame his mind with visions of the victory-party you will be having in honor of his (sexually) dead body. The bitch must now readily volunteer that, in addition to you “not gettin’ any”, she is “gettin’ some” herself and refers to a boyfriend she will “pleasure” later that evening. Can you imagine that empty “love” with her?

Are they serious? I guess they are. However, my view of respect for my lover is different. I could never degrade my significant other (or myself), by diminishing our love, passions and orgasms to the need for revenge on somebody else. I can’t see my wife approaching me for sex, and me saying to her: “Yeah, babe, I will “pleasure” you tonight. Some faceless bitch on the internet who I don’t know and who should mean nothing to me (if I was mentally stable, that is) really offended me. So because that person, who I don’t know, is controlling me and I have to prove something to that person, We will now make-love, and/or have a frantic against-the-wall romp.”

Such a woman is selfish waste of cells. Her boyfriend must be soooo fulfilled; he gets the ecstasy of climax, but knows his woman is “loving” him for the wrong reasons. Although, he probably doesn’t care; he’s also just in it for the sex anyway. Yet, him knowing that he’s involved with such a defective female could be used to his advantage in nights like that — Her emotions will be so unstable, he can whisper words of comfort in her ear, while he “comforts” himself. . . by getting 2 or even 3 heartless bangs out of her, instead of just one.
Her: “Boyfriend, I feel like crap when I’m insulted online by strangers. How do you feel? Do you support your girl?
Him: “Oh yes,…YES!”

-GXcX

Tested my first html. If the bold didn’t work, I’m not really suffering because of it.

Lyn87 says:
December 30, 2014 at 11:52 pm
“You know that you’ve hit your mark as a rhetorician when your opponent throws himself headlong into the trap you set and proves your point for you. One of my God-given talents is the ability to do that to atheists (actual or functional)… and I do it a lot.”

Could you post some examples or links to examples? I’ve been on general reddit a bit longer than I intended and have gotten more than my eyeful of jerks mocking religion in general and Christianity in particular. I’d like to balance it out with some of your examples if you don’t mind.

Question: are these women feminists or traditionalists? For sure, they cannot be both, can they?
Are the two not mutually exclusive?
On this the last day of the year of Our Lord 2014, I wish everyone here a very happy and prosperous New Year.
I have to say that it has been a pleasure, a good education and an eye-opener reading this blog for yet another year. It is refreshing to debate current topics with so many people who think deeply about these things. Thank you all.

My question above comes about as a result of very recent experiences that are not unrelated to the topic of this post.
I recently shared (in response to some of the topics debated here) that I am now at home, on the request and approval of my husband, where I take care of the home, generally help him with his work and prepare for the birth of our children.
On one recent meeting with some clients of his (some of whom are also friends), one of them (all are of retirement age, so are the age-group of our parents) asked me, ‘so what are you doing now?’ (he knows my profession). When I replied that I was ‘at home’/working for my husband/’he is now my boss’, the look of shock on his face I shall never forget.
There were 3 couples there at that meeting/dinner. All of them had had traditional lives, with the men working good jobs, and the women more or less SAHMs, or with partial-time jobs at least when their kids were small. The only exception to this was one woman who had been an Olympic swimmer and had no children. (She became my swimming teacher when my then boyfriend now husband paid her to teach me to swim because ‘there are many lakes where I live, and I don’t want her to drown when she becomes my wife’, lol).
And yet, they were shocked/disapproving/amazed that my husband and I choose this way of living.
My question is, why this conflict? These people are traditionalists, but they clearly support a feministic way of life. Why?
Are they simply confused?
Are they trying to be ‘politically correct’ with me? Even though nothing about me suggests that they need to be?

How should I interpret Shell’s position?
Should I simply ‘watch what she does’ and not listen to what she says? If she is a SAHM, looks after her husband’s needs, is a good wife, etc., is that not all I need to know? Should I care that she calls herself a feminist?
In the parable about the two sons, Jesus praised the one who actually did what the father asked him to do, even if he said he wouldn’t do it, and condemned the one who said he would do it, but didn’t.
But I am still intrigued: WHY do women like Shell feel the need to call themselves feminists? Why did my husband’s clients react the way they did when I told them I was being a wife in the traditional sense?
If they had all been my age or younger, I wouldn’t have cared an iota. But these are people who are older and wiser (suposedly) than me.
Can we really not trust our elders anymore?
This makes me worry that if one day I need advice from an older woman I would only get horrible advice. Luckily for me, there are still one or two women I still trust who I know would show me the way and are not infected with feminist rubbish.

I find it really sad though, that even a woman who is doing all the good things that I aspire to achieve, is calling herself a feminist. This in itself is worrying.

Unless…we are all horribly mistaken in our definition of a feminist.

So, my next (and final) question is this:
What actually *is* a feminist?
Is there a good kind and a bad kind?

“I look forward to the article next Christmas, written by a British man, where he complains that his wife isn’t doing enough work preparing the house for Christmas while he works extra hours at his dead-end job to afford the gifts.”

To afford the gifts many British women will work as well, as average male wages are no longer sufficient to raise a family, buy a house, and have a SAHM. The tired women who serves in the supermarket may well be doing two part-time jobs AND decorating the house.

I don’t want to thread-jack into the subject of Apologetics (which could easily create scores of posts unrelated to the topic at hand). Give me a little time and check back here: I’ll try to find some good sources for you. Take heart, though… it is trivially easy to beat atheists (and those who argue like them – let’s call them “Denialists” since they deny the obvious workings of God) at their own game. Many of them try to get technical when you call them out, so you have to be prepared to go that route, but the basics of logic and the scientific method are not all that difficult to master, and that’s all on our side. The corollary to that is that the people you’re debating don’t have those things, but usually don’t realize it and they think they do. The most common outcome is that I prove my point as the “Denialist” leaps headlong into the logic traps I set for him – one after the other – but when he eventually realizes he’s trapped he stammers, “…but, but, but…. SCIENCE!,” as if that settled the matter in his favor. Earlier this year – towards the end of a very lengthy debate – I got a guy who self-identified as a having a PhD in Physics to finally admit that the only way to end up with the present state of the universe – absent a supernatural creator – was to begin with the assumption that there are an infinite number of universes (undetectable by us, naturally), since the only way to even theoretically make an impossible event occur by chance is to make an infinite number of attempts. In other words, it took several days of back-and-forth before a guy with a PhD in Physics reluctantly admitted that his basic belief system of how the Universe came to be in its present state was predicated entirely on something from a Robert Heinlein novel. Most people would correctly recognize that as being firmly in the realm of science fiction, but he still considered himself to have won the debate. Just remember that you’re unlikely to convince the person you’re directly addressing and don’t let it get you down – Atheists and other “Denialists” hold to their cosmology with a fervor that Christians should emulate – but you can make headway with fair-minded readers who are following the discussion.

Anyway, that’s all I’ll write about this here to avoid thread-jacking. Check back here tomorrow – in the meantime I’ll try to track down some links for you.

Spacetraveller writes: “Why did my husband’s clients react the way they did when I told them I was being a wife in the traditional sense? If they had all been my age or younger, I wouldn’t have cared an iota. But these are people who are older and wiser (supposedly) than me. Can we really not trust our elders anymore?”

No, we really can’t. Due to the twin plagues of youth culture and PC, it is currently fashionable to shrug off age and experience, and admit no impediments to holding onto the allegedly ‘authentic’ ideals of youth and inexperience. Look at any ad aimed at the Boomer generation, and you’ll hear actors confess how they’re not slowing down, nosirree they’ve still got it going on, as Steppenwolf plays in the background. No-one dares confess to traditional wisdom acquired with age, much less actually repent of their earlier errors no matter the damage caused.

And self-identification with feminism has become a marker of social class. When feminists criticize wifely behavior, notice how it always devolves to the stereotype of the barefoot, pregnant trailer park denizen. If the successful. happy wife — the ‘June Cleaver’ — is discussed at all, it is as a traitor to class consciousness.

Question: are these women feminists or traditionalists? For sure, they cannot be both, can they?

Well, they’ve been told they can be both successful careerists and great mothers. If that’s possible, being a feminist traditionalist should be easy.

Basically, we’ve gotten to the point that you’re not allowed to suggest that there’s anything a woman can’t do, even if it’s a literal impossibility. To tell a girl she can’t draw a square circle is oppression, and possibly a hate crime. So if she wants to be a feminist traditionalist, then you’re supposed to keep your mouth shut and pat her on the back.

Spacetraveller, one thing you’ll note about feminists (and feminism in popular culture) is that it is a form of institutionalized hypocrisy, and these examples from Dalrock are merely scratching the surface. Feminism uses a tactic known as “motte and bailey” in its arguments, in which the real feminism, which is ugly and full of hate, conceals itself behind rhetoric about equal rights (or in this case, personal domesticity) whenever challenged. If you want to know what the real feminism looks like without its defensive smokescreen, read RSM’s Sex Trouble series.

However, note that there are women describing themselves as “feminist” who are actually “smokescreen feminists” – the ones who actually believe the part about “equal rights” (they will prove this by supporting men’s rights in today’s culture) and will actively support a woman’s choice to be a SAHM or to bear and raise an “undesirable” child (one with disabilities, or a product of rape). These are not “true feminists” because they either don’t know or explicitly reject the anti-male and anti-feminine biases of mainstream third-wave feminism. Christina Hoff Sommers is one example of this type of “feminist.” She rejects the bigotry and lies of third-wave feminism.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the one topic most guaranteed to get regular feminist’s knickers in a twist, to get them to come out and start engaging one-on-one in real debates with men in the real world isn’t the pay gap, isn’t the ‘rape culture’, isn’t the lack of women in STEM…..

……but the idea that men think feminists are UGLY.

It’s like they can’t bear to think that men, as a group, think of them as ugly. All their beliefs, ideals, slogans, careering, empowerment, discarded the instant they understand that men find these things ugly. Replaced by pontifications about how they live their lives – a way in direct contradiction to the feminist worldview and diktats. Whilst still being feminists. Deluded.

If that doesn’t give them a clue about the reality of their own nature then nothing will. They are lost.

Beauty is only skin deep but ugly cuts straight to the bone. What “ugly feminists” don’t get is that it’s not about the flat shoes, the clapped out Subaru, the armpit hair or the sneer that makes them ugly, though that stuff doesn’t help. It’s about the spiritual and emotional ugliness they have on display, and the ugly results of a philosophy that is increasingly showing itself to be a totalitarian, female supremacist outlook. They believe a lot of ugly things and act in a lot of ugly ways.

The armpit hair that looks like unwahed hasidim nomads is just a bonus.

“It makes me wonder what kind of sex education gals are getting these days. They seem to have no clue how it works.”

Yeah… you hear feminists and assorted libtards raging on about the supposed benighted “religionists” who favor teaching abstinence. This despite the fact that abstinence actually works 100% of the time, and so-called “sex education” has produced three generations of baby-mommas and millions of bastard children. Of course they almost always say something stupid about “backwards” places that don’t teach “real” sex-ed, although there is not one public school in the U.S. that teaches abstinence as anything other than an “option” – and most of them don’t even do that.

Kids, especially “empowered young womyn” in schools don’t even understand basic critical thinking, yet these yahoos want them to understand all sorts of “nuances” pertaining to fornication (nuances that mostly exist in their own minds). Most of these kids can’t really understand anything more complicated than, “Keep your legs closed or bad things will happen.” Anything more than that is like trying to teach a cat how to juggle.

I always get a laugh at how feminists’ first defense to the accusation of being ‘ugly’ is always to tell personal tales of how in shape they really are (“not that you’ll believe me”). The first reflex is to think you’re calling them ‘ugly’ in the context of schoolyard taunts.

…the ones who actually believe the part about “equal rights” …These are not “true feminists” because they either don’t know or explicitly reject the anti-male and anti-feminine biases of mainstream third-wave feminism.

Those women are in fact true feminists (as is the overwhelming majority of the US populace – feminism is the norm now), only they are feminists of a different flavor. The suffragists were feminists, as are those like Betty Friedman, as well as the likes of Sarah Palin, the Clinton’s and the Obama’s. There is no “equal rights” between the sexes under the law and never will be, it’s just not possible. Every time we “liberate” a woman, we burden some man (or men) with her responsibilities. Patriarchy my boy, patriarchy, that’s where you’ll find the closest thing to “equality between the sexes” IMO.

Hey if they want to make it crystal clear what side they are on…who are we to stop them in their quest to be the most ugly.

That’s the way sensible men ought to see it. Someone who has an obvious “tell” (armpit hair, multicolored dye jobs, garish skanky tattoos, etc.) is doing everyone a favor by marking themselves as an unapproachable nutter.

Not sure how y’all feel about Baptists and Texans at that but Grace Family had a great Sunday School series on apologetics that’s likely on sermonaudio.com. It’s where Voddie Baucham preaches so it’s pro-Ephesians 5.

Increasingly the Social Justice Warriors, including feminists, don’t actually bother to engage in any logical kind of debate, but resort to disqualification. “You can’t say that because you are (bad group) or are not (good group)”, rather than “your argument doesn’t hold water because (facts)”.

Flip that coin over. If the only tool in the box is “Disqualfy!” then any and all criticism that has a sting to it, such as “feminists are ugly” must be …. disqualification. So the response, perhaps the Pavlovian reponse, must be – qualification. “I am so entitled to say this because I’m qualified!”

Thus the various feminists, stung by the notion that they are ugly inside, miserly in various ways, immediately leap to defend themselves in terms of their qualifications, and for women “Qualification” means certain things. Such as sexual generosity to their men.

This posting suggests some interesting angles for dealing with feminists. For years, feminism has played the Disqualify card against men in such a way as to arouse certain natural tendencies – protection and provision being two – within men to further the feminist agenda. Triggering the natural female tendency to want to Qualify for the attention of a man or men, this is clearly not difficult. Of course PUA’s have known for years that one way to deal with fitness testing is by reversing the test, such that the woman seeks to Qualify herself to the man.

Brad, I’m not surprised a dictionary would show it that way, since people have been misusing it that way for a while. Dictionaries reflect usage, they don’t dictate it.

I’m not policing anything. I’m observing that when people use words in awkward ways, they’re often trying to sound smart and/or obfuscate their intentions.

If you say you want to “talk to” me later, that’s straightforward and yet open to whatever kind of discussion either of us wants to have. It could be dry, angry, emotional, friendly, whatever, and I could say whatever I want to say.

On the other hand, if you say you want to “dialog with” me later, I’m going to start looking for the catch. It sounds like you already have an agenda which you’re going to follow, and we’re going to come to an agreement whether I like it or not. The boss in “Office Space” would say, “Let’s dialog to see how you can do better with your TPS reports.”

Yes, I’m overstating it a bit, and some people may mean nothing by it except that they’ve picked it up from others and think it sounds smart. It’s just one of those little red flags.

Whenever arguing with your typical social-conservative sort of woman, lobbing an accusation of being a feminist is usually quite effective (and will result in prostrations such as “I’ve never been called a feminist before”, “I’m not a feminist”, etc.)

Of course, it doesn’t occur to their feminine minds that social conservativism is some of the worst manifestation of feminism around today.

The zeitgeist of the day groups many causes together — feminism, minority rights, immigration advocacy, etc. — but this is a very loose coalition, with different parts often at odds with each other. It’s not so obvious that feminism, as it was traditionally understood, belongs in the same camp of the new post-left identity politics.

Not all races of women are the same and race cuts deeper than gender.

Feminism is a product of females of Northern European ancestry. As argued by the Roman historian Tacitus, Northern European women have always had more liberties. This tend goes back thousands of years and there are probably sociobiological reasons for it, such as the particular type of monogamy that evolved among Northern Europeans. But these liberties are under fire — not from gun-toting white males from the South but from the hoards of Third World people coming to the United States.

The new multiracial empire forming in the United States will eventually and undoubtedly be hostile toward white women. As noted by Brenda Walker, Third World immigration will hurt women. Just look at the treatment of white women by blacks and mestizos. Listen to some rap music or look at some crime statistics on Hispanics. Or look at these statistics on interracial rape in the United States:

“In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.”

While short-sighted feminists have declared war upon Darwinism simply because it does not conform to political correctness, Darwinian insights can provide realistic survival goals for European females. The first thing white females must realize is that race cuts deeper than gender.

A recent example. For all her talk of a “trans-racial feminism,” Oprah Winfrey dropped the real feminist (Hillary Clinton) in a heartbeat to support her co-ethnic Barack Obama (who’s a lukewarm feminist at best). As did nearly all other black women. You see, non-whites are not as naive as whites when it comes to identity politics; whites too often believe in abstract universals (which works for mathematics) but can be detrimental when it comes to politics.

Another example that comes to mind is the OJ Simpson trial. Feminist prosecutor Marcia Clark tried to pack the jury with white women, and Johnnie Cochran tried to pack it with black men. They compromised with a jury of mostly black females. Well, we know the end of that story.

In terms of IQ (intelligence), the IQ differences between genders is minimal and IQ largely tracks by race. For instance, the average white female will have significantly higher IQ than both black males and black females. Regarding trans-racial bonding, white females, intellectually, have very little in common with black females. Why would we want to be grouped with them?

I could give many more examples of race trumping gender but a greater insight is the realization that throughout human history nearly 90% or more of all wars have been ethnic conflicts of sorts. Even many religious wars were truly ethno-religious wars. History has yet to demonstrate a gender war. The very idea that men and women would divide by gender and then attempt to exterminate each other is ridiculous from a Darwinian perspective because it would reduce everyone’s inclusive fitness. If “war is the great clarifier,” as they say, then the very absence of armed “gender wars” clearly demonstrates the primacy of race over gender.

People sort by race. They always have; they always will. A white man and a white woman can pair up, have a child, and each will increase his or her inclusive fitness. Not so with a white female and black female teaming up, for even if they adopted, say a “mixed-race (black-white) child, each female would be around 55x more closely related to her co-ethnics than to the adopted child. Their inclusive fitness would be diminished.”

Once again, race trumps gender. A lesson that all feminists today need to learn. A reality that Margaret Sanger knew very well but many feminists today seem to have forgotten.

Merry Christmas and God bless you and yours, Dalrock.
That feminism is ugly is self-evident. Just look at where it is entrenched: the inner cities of the world, be it Sydney, London or Berlin contain fat, misshapen, tatttooed, loud-mouthed, badly dressed women. They are either lesbian, promiscuous, or into hideous BDSM practices.These women have been proven worse health outcomes, having higher obesity, heart disease, drug abuse, alcoholism, STIs (even lesbians: the median N for a “lesbian” is 45 MALE partners!), a lower rate of cancer diagnosis – the list goes on. That list of appalling medical outcomes is in contrast to married women, who have BELOW average vice-related bad health – better than single women or lesbian women, fewer STIs, and better /earlier cancer diagnoses. So much for feminism’s self proclaimed role as “liberator” of women!

There is something disturbing about the abortions feminists seem to have. Gloria Steinem had at least one, Australian writer Clementine Ford has admitted to two, and Ms Valenti to “several”. I think this means they have to adhere to their philosophy because the guilt they feel would consume them if they didn’t. Of course it would: Deep down inside, their God-given consciences have told them abortion is wrong, but they have had to “sear their conscience with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:2) to go through with it.

Spacetraveller @ 6:08 am:
“My question is, why this conflict? These people are traditionalists, but they clearly support a feministic way of life. Why? Are they simply confused? Are they trying to be ‘politically correct’ with me? Even though nothing about me suggests that they need to be?”

Dalrock has written a couple times about the modern belief that all progress is good progress. That’s obviously false but it explains how traditional types can celebrate non-traditional ideas. They’re predisposed to believe the new way of feminism is better than the old way of patriarchy because feminism is NEW! And new is good!

Combine that with not connecting society’s collapse with feminism’s influence and you get people who were themselves raised traditional but are shocked at the idea that you want to be traditional, too.

They aren’t deceiving you. They’re discovering you violate beliefs they didn’t realize they held. It’s a good teaching moment if you’re prepared to exploit it.

Postscript: It is a woman’s primary response to the criticism of feminism to say she is a feminist and that she agrees with the “basic tenets” of feminism, yet will run off anecdotes of how she is family oriented.
Whenever feminism is criticised and whenever women’s lack of reciprocal obligations in marriage (that is, sex) is exposed and account is called for, women will tell you exactly what Dalrock’s examples here do.
The next time a feminist writes an article and you can reply to it, criticise women along the lines of sexual deprivation and family dysfunction. Dozens of women will attack you with the NAWALT defence, convincing you that they are all vixens who NEVER deprive their husbands or weaponise sex. To a woman they are all good mothers who would never dream of depriving their children of fathers. Not a single one. All good wives. All good mothers. All good feminists.
Why then do the statistics not corroborate this?

Anecdotal evidence of feminisms ugliness: A few years back I was frustrated with my wife, then girlfriend, because she wouldn’t further her career with grad school (my blue pill days) and I finally confronted her about this. She replied that she wanted a good marriage and a good family and that none of the grad school/career minded women that worked around her had that. That put me in my place. It also opened my eyes and I saw what she may have been alluding to: These women all looked terrible from overwork and family problems.

Whenever arguing with your typical social-conservative sort of woman, lobbing an accusation of being a feminist is usually quite effective (and will result in prostrations such as “I’ve never been called a feminist before”, “I’m not a feminist”, etc.)
Of course, it doesn’t occur to their feminine minds that social conservativism is some of the worst manifestation of feminism around today.

JF: Ah, but it’s the MALE white-knight social-conservatives that you really gotta watch out for. Especially if they are 501c3, State-incorporated “pastors.” There’s not a sin that a wife can commit that they can’t find a way to blame the husband for. Because, you see, females are “responders,” and if you “love them the way Christ loves His Church” then the wife cannot do any other thing than “respond” in kind—because, you see, God made females as “responders” to males.
I actually had a hireling shepherd tell me that a few years back. Oh Lord, I wish I could travel back in time, knowing what I know now, and nail his white-knight, unscriptural, hireling shepherd butt to the wall of his office.
Trad-Cons are bad and hopelessly brainwashed; but if you want to take white-knight brainwashing to its absolute nadir of all nadirs, you really gotta go subject yourself to marriage counseling with one of these incorporated pulpit parrots nowadays. Oh, the joy. Oh, oh, the joy.

@JF said: “Because, you see, females are “responders,” and if you “love them the way Christ loves His Church” then the wife cannot do any other thing than “respond” in kind—because, you see, God made females as “responders” to males.”

“… Christ loves his Church.” Christ may love those who are not “in his Church” (he did die for them after all), but he doesn’t consider those who are not “in his Church” to be part of his Church. And he doesn’t love them the same way he loves his Church.

I’ve done this more completely elsewhere, but you should get the point with this brief presentation.

1. Christ does not consider those who don’t obey him to be part of the “Church” that he loves.
2. Christ does not consider someone who rejects his authority to be part of his Church.
3. Christ does not take direction from his Church. Rather, he gives direction to the church.

4. Christs Church, the one that he loves, is made up of those who obey him, who accept and honor his authority, and who accept direction from him. These are the people who can legitimately expect Christ’s love to be extended to them. Man’s love is to Christ’s love as wife’s attitude toward husband is to Church’s attitude toward Christ.

The Bible doesn’t call husbands to love their wives the same as Christ loves those who reject him. The quote presented at the top of this post has it backwards. Wives are to be to their husbands as the Church is to Christ. Then wives can expect their husband’s love in the same way the Church expects Christ’s love. The quote presented above says that a wife will become as the Church is to Christ ONLY if her husband loves her in her disobedient, disrespectful way in the same way Christ loves those who are obedient and respectiful to him (the Church).

Bad theology, that interpretation.

Christ does not wash in the word those who reject him. Neither should husbands. It makes a mockery of Christ’s relation to his Church.

Let’s get rid of Infirmary Feminism, with its bedlam of bellyachers, anorexics, bulimics, depressives, rape victims, and incest survivors. Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses.”
— Camille Paglia

Dear Dalrock et al.,
Having read your blog for some time now, I find it ironic that you level a charge of miserliness at feminists when that the very ethos of much of your writing appears to be that a man should never do anything for a woman unless it stands to be “reciprocated” with sex. It seems telling that the concept of a feminist cooking and cleaning for her family is so implausible to you. Can you truly not conceive of one person doing something pleasant for another without a gender-based power dynamic?

The argument for “feminist” women embracing home-making usually goes something like this: feminism gave women the right to choose how they would live their own lives, and so women who are choosing to be SAHMs and cook for their husbands etc, are still good feminists because they are choosing for themselves. .

To take it a step further, choice is a moral end unto itself in the liberal worldview, an act of defiance, while not permitting choice is immoral, and anyone or anything who takes away your choices is acting immorally towards you. Therefore, a woman’s instinctive need to care and nurture her family is immoral, because it is not chose, as is society requiring that she do so. However, if she chooses it for herself (apart from any instinct or nature, because as we all know, the only immutable aspect of human nature is our sexuality), then it is moral and may be celebrated as such.

It is not the act of being a homemaker that is feminist, but the decision to be.

Erasmus: Can you truly not conceive of one person doing something pleasant for another without a gender-based power dynamic?

JF: Projecting again? Um, like, have you ever asked this question of ANY FEMINIST? Seeing as how, you know, the obsession with “gender-based power dynamics” is in fact the raison d’être of ALL feminist ideology. Or did you forget that little detail?

Dear Dalrock et al.,
Having read your blog for some time now, I find it ironic that you level a charge of miserliness at feminists when that the very ethos of much of your writing appears to be that a man should never do anything for a woman unless it stands to be “reciprocated” with sex. It seems telling that the concept of a feminist cooking and cleaning for her family is so implausible to you. Can you truly not conceive of one person doing something pleasant for another without a gender-based power dynamic?

Not to speak for Dalrock or anybody else. I’m more interested in the law and how men and myself are treated under the law and culture. To get this out of the way, the only reason to even have a woman around is sex, marriage and children etc. Other than that there is no responsible reason especially now due to the law and culture and even that once again due to law and culture may not be a good enough reason.
You post is phrased is such a way that it tries to redefine feminist and women capable of putting family above ones self. Not going to work here. Also my original comment on the reason for a woman in my life is valid and responsible due to feminism and now even that is now put into question. By law no woman is a good wife and most men know it. The men here especially yet their calling is to biblical principal for the betterment of mankind in general. Every man here that marries or involves himself with a woman is at risk or severe legal jeopardy not just “she won’t have sex with me” though an issue is not the reason for the manosphere. A running joke of men for years was to the effect of “if you don’t like having sex with your girlfriend marry her and have kids” the joke based in reality is variations of that. The problem is the law.
The reason a woman doesn’t reciprocate a man’s kindness is because she doesn’t have to by law. A man’s gift to a woman he loves is a legal requirement with real penalties. What she has to offer sex is all she has to offer (sex falls under cooking cleaning and other social acts of affection) is not ever a requirement under law or culture. Every thing is a gender based power dynamic by law. For a woman to day to be a good wife it is impossible for her to be a feminist. Emotionally and spiritually for her own well being she has to submit herself to her husband. Impossible for a feminist woman to do by law. That is why married women are held so much higher here than pieces of ass single moms.

I think we are all brainwashed into needing a partner. And its built into the body to want to procreate, especially in earlier years. I think it would be wonderful if 25% of men and women chose the single life, as a way to live out their best. But I’m not God so my question is: is God calling as many to a married state as are? The bible sure states that if you can handle that, its the way to go!

The philosophical roots and agenda of feminism, created for the most part by men- those in the know who promote it (big $$$ not your women’s studies minion professor), are documented, goal-oriented, coordinated and nefarious. And many lies are involved. (As usual there are some good points to everything) The thing for men and women is not to hate each other and as important not to give in to despair. Don’t let the prince of this world win your soul. Suffering is terrible but it is temporary. Tradition and some saints reveal that Judas broke Jesus’ heart big time.

From what I’ve read, Puritanism was in no way opposed to enjoyment of sex. Apparently one of the selling points of Puritanism was “all the sex you can handle, go nuts — as long as you’re married, and don’t talk about it in public.” Seems like a pretty good deal nowadays.

This is what I was thinking when I read Earl’s post. We should remember that most of what is taught in this culture is twisted, backwards, upside down, and inside out. Our society is a feminist society, and has been for decades. If you want the to get at the truth about a given subject in a society like ours, you have to dig down deep and toss away a lot of trash.

I have a basic rule for leftist / feminists. If they don’t like someone / something, find out why and what really happened before I except the presented narrative. Remember, they have no love for the truth.

Having read your blog for some time now, I find it ironic that you level a charge of miserliness at feminists when that the very ethos of much of your writing appears to be that a man should never do anything for a woman unless it stands to be “reciprocated” with sex.

There’s your problem: you’re making a false assumption that’s not supported by anything Dalrock has said on this blog, so naturally the rest of it won’t make sense to you.

Of course, I may be making a false assumption that you’re asking an honest question. We’ll see.

Just so ya’ know… anyone who uses the phrase “gender-based power dynamic” unironically is probably not capable of swallowing the red pill yet, and thus will draw all the wrong conclusions when they hear red pill men talking amongst themselves – as you have done.

Adjust your paradigm and then get back to us. You will probably find that you have fewer questions that require the use of nonsense feminist phrases to articulate.

@Eidolon:
Yep, the actual Puritans were not sadomasochistic killjoys. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to correct the modern usage of the word without making tangential arguments even I find dull. Just like the word “gay”.

Part of the ugliness of feminists and their allies is what they choose to corrupt: Puritan, gay, rainbow, even Jesus’ own name when they stub their toe. Symbols of happiness and hope, now the equivalent of vandalized crosses. And they say we’re the intolerant ones.

Off-topic, Dalrock, could you do a post on your blogging experiences? 2014 saw the end of several good Manosphere blogs; a little sage advice could encourage new blood. You went through a good scrap yourself this year.

On the subject of the Puritans and their high regard for married sex, there’s a story I heard that I’ve never been able to verify for myself. Perhaps someone else here has heard the same story and will be able to substantiate it.

The story goes that a Puritan woman approached the board of elders with a complaint against her husband: that he wouldn’t have sex with her. (The actual language they used was something like “fulfilling his conjugal duties,” of course, but that was unambiguous at the time, and everyone understood what was meant.) They investigated, he admitted his refusal, and they told him “You’re sinning. Repent, and make it right by having sex with your wife. Often.” A while later, she came to them and said, “He’s still not having sex with me.” They investigated, found it true, and confronted him again to say “You’re sinning against your wife. Stop sinning against her, or we will consider that you have effectively abandoned your marriage”. She came to them a third time with the same complaint, they investigated and found it to be true, and they granted her a divorce (VERY unusual, I gather) on the grounds that he his abandonment of her was functionally the same as having committed adultery, and allowed her to remarry to someone who would fulfill his conjugal duties toward her.

(I have little doubt, by the way, that these elders would have done the same thing if it had been a man complaining that his wife wasn’t giving him sex. I very much doubt that this was white-knighting; the way the story was told me, it was clear that this was careful application of a principle.)

Whatever your views on the attitude towards divorce that this elder board had, it’s undeniable that this story portrays them thinking married sex is very, very important. The question I have is, has anyone else heard that story before? And can you confirm that it really happened, with a historical source that reports the story? Or is it one of those urban legends that end up quoted in pastor’s sermons without ever being verified?

@Robin Munn:
According to the extremely scholarly historical book ALBION’S SEED by David Hackett Fischer, the Puritans viewed the marriage contract first and foremost as a CONTRACT, and although they took the marriage vow very seriously, a CONTRACT could be violated and grounds for divorce. They of course also prepared young people assiduously for marriage, teaching them for years what marriage was about, before letting young people take that vow. Of course, today’s society has lost that wisdom.
But according to DH Fischer, it was the Anglican Cavaliers who settled in Virginia who taught that “there was no such thing as divorce”—which meant that Cavalier Virginians were more apt to engage in concubinage (mistresses).
Excelling book, ALBION’S SEED. It’s a huge tome about the four folkways of people who came from Britain to settle in the New World.

I was thinking the point was that it couldn’t be used as a verb. I use Google as a verb at times, so I don’t mind even misusing clear nouns. Seeing it as a flag for idiocy or an alternative agenda could very well be useful.

So our you out of the Church when you sin? I guess your life is lived on pins and needles then. You never know exactly when the end will come and whether you will have had a chance to make it right in time. Or you believe you never sin. Keep in mind that sinning is not following Christ’s commands.

The gallery of ugly Feminist writers and columnists Dalrock has gloriously dissected throughout the year should best be thought of as the storm trooper brigade of Feminism. They are disposable, useful idiots. They are produced by the thousands in the universities and sent out into the world in a blitzkrieg of inanity with two purposes that they’re not even privy to: to create a smokescreen and to divert the energy of men.

We men are left swatting at flies in the fog while the more dangerous Feminist operatives have infiltrated all major institutions, allowing them to write policy and administrative law unhindered. At the institutional level they experience very little in the way of actual opposition.

Earl, “sex” is more boring when done in a Godly way only, if that sex is just using the woman as a toilet bowl to dump your semen into. Shallow. That is why the perversions happen.

Sex used in a Godly way goes beyond the animal into the spiritual, as it is the joining of the 2 energies that God has bestowed upon us Humans. When the depth of this type of sex is attained, the animal part of us is dispatched.

Well, is complaining, integral to the British Christmas? Who better to ask than Kate Fox whose recently revised and expanded Watching the English is presently at number 2277 on Amazon.co.uk. (27,369 on.com) The Index (to the earlier edition) has the following entry – I omit the page numbers:

She might have added that it is also traditional, immediately before Christmas, for the Archbishop of Canterbury to remind every one what Christmas is really about, but as he has been ill with pneumonia, we failed to get that this year; on Christmas Day itself the most watched television program is (as always) Her Majesties address to all her Loyal subjects wherever they may be (photo-op for the corgis, Prince George and a supporting cast of happy-looking southern-hemisphere types); and then as soon as the holidays are over it is also traditional for the newspapers like The Guardian (though they all join in) to point out that despite the Archbishop’s concerns about consumerism Marks and Spencer is once again doing less well than last year (hard to believe if you actually go there on Christmas Eve – as us singletons must do should we not wish to starve, over the festivities).

For myself, I always wait for the Boxing Day news (that is the day after Christmas) of a a major travel disaster in the far east – one is never disappointed.

Let us not forget that during the interregnum Lord Protector Cromwell banned Christmas altogether.

I’m curious about why Dalrock frequently says no-fault divorce results in “men being evicted from their home” when statistics show clearly that as many men file first for divorce as do women. Facts about no-fault divorce: 1) rates of divorce increased w/in two years and then went back to the original rate across the board, 2) suicides by wives went down 18-20% after no-fault divorce was implemented (due to being able to leave marriages w/domestic violence). Your convoluted arguments are based on faulty facts which you use to try and rationalize your blatant hatred of women in general (unless they’re Christian complimentarians). Contrary to the subtitle of your blog of self-centered rants, I do not believe that your wife is as happily married as you claim to be. Maybe you should crawl back under your Dalrock and lick your patriarchal wounds. Women work, love, marry, don’t marry, have sex, enjoy cooking and frequently find loving men who are not threatened by their wive’s accomplishments. You’re a sick person and need serious psychological help which you’ll never get because you’re self-righteous and narcissistic. Oh well. Your hatred is marginal in any case.

I’m curious about why Dalrock frequently says no-fault divorce results in “men being evicted from their home” when statistics show clearly that as many men file first for divorce as do women.

No they do NOT Julie. Men file for divorce in 30% of cases (and declining.) Women file for divorce in 70% of cases (and increasing.) Your “statistics” are entirely wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about…. none.

More to the point, the men on this blog are just as angry with men filing for divorce (unilaterally) as they are with women. We want the divorce law changed so that neither side can divorce unilaterally. How about you? Do you want the law changed? Do you want an amendment to the Constitution taking away a state’s right to grant unilateral divorce law? Because that is what the manosphere largely wants. And if you don’t want that, it is because YOU KNOW that unilateral divorce law is sacred to feminism.

Your convoluted arguments are based on faulty facts which you use to try and rationalize your blatant hatred of women in general (unless they’re Christian complimentarians).

Julie, no one here hates women. We LOVE women. We HATE feminism. Look at what feminism has done to you….?

Maybe you should crawl back under your Dalrock and lick your patriarchal wounds. Women work, love, marry, don’t marry, have sex, enjoy cooking and frequently find loving men who are not threatened by their wive’s accomplishments. You’re a sick person and need serious psychological help which you’ll never get because you’re self-righteous and narcissistic.

Go back and re-read your own (feminist) remarks. You sound broken. You sound damaged. You sound almost dangerous. You don’t sound at all like a woman. You sound evil, almost like a destroyer. I’m not going to accuse you of hating all men the way you just accused men here of hating all women because I know better, but I think you need to re-evaluate this site and the posters that are on it. You are misled Julie. You need a red pill.

Look objectively at Dalrock’s wording, versus “Julie Vanderslice’s”, and it’s easy to see who is hateful. The worst he used was ‘ugly’ and ‘miserly,’ and to describe a mindset, not a particular person. The only person insulted directly was Valenti, as a ‘poster child’ who ‘spewed venom,’ which he backed with evidence using the usual calm tone overall. Valenti chose to be abrasive in a major publication so can handle the criticism, anyway. Dalrock IS just a member of the Christian Taliban, so whatevs, right?

Vanderscreech: “you . . . rationalize your blatant hatred of women . . . your blog of self-centered rants, I do not believe that your wife is as happily married as you claim . . . . Maybe you should crawl back under your Dalrock and lick your patriarchal wounds. Women . . . find loving men who are not threatened by their wive’s . . . . You’re a sick person and need serious psychological help which you’ll never get because you’re self-righteous and narcissistic. . . .”

Mee-yow. Oh and it’s wife’s, not wive’s.

Dalrock thanks for sharing the June Cleaver comments. So intent they are to prove they aren’t ugly/miserly, they claim larger housekeeping feats than a lowly complimentarian like me, who does not can, nor cook every night, nor even ‘run her own business.’ (Which could mean spending too much money on crafts at Michaels and having a few things posted on an Etsy account. Technically speaking. For that matter cooking might mean thawing freezer meals.)

Did you notice the ugliness come thru though, in the form of TMI? A couple commenters couldn’t even brag about their ‘wifely accomplishments’ without being vulgar.

For the TRULY JV @Julie: Your assertions are pedantic. 15% decrease in wife suicides when No Fault Divorce approved. Was that 6 or 12 women? Want to compare your 15% number, whatever it might be, with the increased serious crime rate caused by single/divorced mothers in your divorce Nirvana. Check your privilege Lady. Nobody on this blog hates women. We understand them though, as well as any group of men in world history.

As Yoda might say: “Hate it, you do, problem is knowledge men having.”

You understand women? All you do is bash bash bash. Some narcissist up there wrote that I’m “dangerous…evil…” and now this one is hilarious…”you don’t sound like a woman” hahahaha…I knew this troll would be fun! Bye bye little boyz! I won’t be back. YAY TO NO FAULT DIVORCE!! If the only way you can keep a marriage going (as I have for 23 years w/kids) is by making divorce illegal or difficult to obtain, well then maybe you shouldn’t get married at all. Of course, I’m an indoctrinated feminist robot…hahaha! Ciao! hahaha

I know plenty of kids who grew up in a divorced family and they are actively involved citizens who have grown up quite well. Many things can affect the quality of childhood including domestic violence, verbal abuse, domination (you do all the chores like a good feminine wife should…and w/o any complaint (or I’ll label you a nag, manipulator, feminazi, or other verbally-abusive epithet that demeans you for simply being female and not doing what I, the manly man, wants). People (i.e., men only) on this delusional blog seem to see women as “the other” and something to be degraded except for the rare feminine woman lol); how else to explain bashing widows, divorcees, women who don’t marry early enough, and using demeaning language like “slut” “harlot” “feminazi” etc. You are all fully 100% aware that you’re full of hate but you enjoy throwing it out like sh*t so much that you can’t stop yourselves. Thankfully, there is a whole world full of mature men who think of their wives as good friends and not someone they need to see behave in a ridged role. Of all the marriages I’ve seen last 30+ years or more (including my parents), these are couples who respect each other’s differences and don’t use disgusting language to describe other women. Why is it that whenever a young “manosphere” blogger can’t find a “feminine” woman to date and marry (what’s “feminine” to you anyway?), they immediately blame feminism? What a joke you blowhards are to the rest of the MEN and women who live happy lives and don’t waste their time online bashing feminism. Get a life. Meanwhile, women go on working, managing and, yes, having sex w/o marriage (so what) and they even find mates and establish lasting relationships with partners who are not threatened by a female having equal rights in the workplace and at home. I do believe that in divorce (and whether or not to divorce is no one’s business but the individual doing it) joint custody should always be the goal barring mitigating factors like documented abuse. So bring on the bashing (I’m “evil” and “not a woman” and supposedly controlled by the feminist agenda through the media…ad infinitim. And be sure to note any spelling or language problems I’ve accidentally written–that’s really a sign of confidence. Blowhards: that’s all you cry-babies are is blowhards.

Oh and in rsvp to JDG, I DO like what I see around me. Unlike you, I don’t just focus on the negative. Sure, civilization isn’t perfect and never will be but men and women are much better off now than they were at any other time in history. No, I do prefer to raise my kids with their father that I love. However, if my marriage was to someone like you, I’d definitely consider divorce a viable option because I wouldn’t want my children to be subjected to your cry-baby indoctrination. That would be “dangerous to civilization” for sure LOL!

Julie Vanderslice says: I know plenty of kids who grew up in a divorced family and they are actively involved citizens who have grown up quite well.

You are trying to use the exception to disprove the rule. Very poor logic. Let’s take your logic and apply it to something a little less emotional: motorcycles and spinal injuries.

I know plenty of kids who grew up riding motorcycles, never had a spinal injury, and who have grown up quite well.

There’s no doubt that would be a true statement if almost anyone made it, but it doesn’t change the fact that children who ride motorcycles–as a group–are significantly more likely to incur a spinal injury than children who do not ride motor cycles.

The same is true for your statement above. The fact that some divorced children turn out OK, doesn’t change the fact that children of divorce–as a group–have significantly more problems as adults than children of intact families.

I don’t hate men at all. Unlike you, I realize that most men aren’t like the ones who post on these kinds of blogs–thank God. As for “unable to marry and have children?” That’s hilarious. You’re once again using FEAR to send holy terror into the woman who actually expects to be treated as an equal at work and in the home. Women like me are getting married and having children every day in America so your fear tactic is unfounded.

As for the spinal cord analogy, I don’t see people trying to ban or limit motorcycles. Reasonable people let the individual man or woman decide if they think it’s worth the risk to ride a motorcycle…or seek a divorce. You’re silly fools and I don’t have an “OVERLORD” …talk about believing in a conspiracy theory! LOL

Exactly, whose bitch is this? Methinks he is failing in his duty towards her. Comes here, has a hissy-fit, insults everyone. Returns, insults everyone again. Starts lecturing everyone, as if she were in charge of a kinder-garten.

We men are truly failing in our duty if this is a prime example of modern western womanhood. We have no one to blame but ourselves for such haridans and fish-wives. Shall we ask this baggage to desist or shall we throw her out of the virtual window?

I entirely agree. I have seen it before. Women screaming and shouting, jostling and pushing; grabbing and punching. No man of course will deal with her as he would any man who tried the same antics but then again these women are always single, unattached, unwanted. The government wanted them; the government may keep them.

I attempted to reply to her with logic and it either (1) went over her head or (2) she ignored it completely. I’m guessing #2, as nobody with a modicum of reading ability could have missed my point as wildly as she did.

This might be, as they say, a good teaching moment on how to deal with someone like Ms. JV, who is so emotionally glued to their position that they will ignore all logic.

Yes you do. You DO hate them. All you see in your husband is a wallet. That’s it. That is all he’s good for, nothing else. Marriage should be so much more to a woman than her husband’s wallet.

Now why do I say you hate men?

YAY TO NO FAULT DIVORCE!! If the only way you can keep a marriage going (as I have for 23 years w/kids) is by making divorce illegal or difficult to obtain, well then maybe you shouldn’t get married at all.

Wrong. Backwards. You only say this because you hate men. You have to hate us because you don’t respect us BUT you want our financial provisioning. You want it all and no accountability on your part. The only way a feminist can keep headship in marriage and domination over her husband (whom she is supposed to love and obey) is with the threat of unilateral divorce. You keep him on his toes forcing him to keep you happy OR ELSE! That is not a marriage that any man wants. Men hate that marriage 2.0 crap. Largely, men are starting to be MGTOW. Google that if you dare.

Because you love unilateral divorce, you (in turn) must hate men. Julie we in the manosphere love women. We hate feminism.

No, I do prefer to raise my kids with their father that I love. However, if my marriage was to someone like you, I’d definitely consider divorce a viable option because I wouldn’t want my children to be subjected to your cry-baby indoctrination. That would be “dangerous to civilization” for sure LOL!

Lol? Really? This isn’t funny Julie. We are serious here. Seriously, you need to re-evaluate your entire thought process because you are corrupted my dear.

You would consider divorcing your husband because he is a cry baby? You would divorce him for that? How would you like it if your husband divorced you because you cried? How would you like it if he divorced you for anything? Because the men in the manosphere, we are against divorce… period. That has perminantly destroyed that which God made sacred.

Or, more pointedly, you couldn’t have expected to come here and change anyone’s mind, just as nothing we say will change yours. Perhaps you should head on out. Door’s over there.

The thing is, she says she’s been married for 23 years. Can you imagine that? Lets say for the moment she’s telling the truth, imagine being her husband and living with a woman like that who regards you the way she does men (and the way she honors divorce) for almost quarter of a century? She must have aged him well beyond those 23 years. I’ll bet his stress level is through the roof. I hope he doesn’t have a heart attack what with all the worry she gives him.

@Anonymous Reader: So you actually blame women for a man’s decision to off himself? Talk about not taking personal responsibility.

No, I point out that “no fault divorce” clearly is a major factor in the sucide of men. Since you celebrate no-fault divorce, it follows that you either don’t care about men’s suicide, or you celebrate that as well.

Feminism is the modest proposal that only women are humans, so perhaps men’s suicide is of no significance to you because you do not regard men as human beings?

Plus, as should be common knowledge, “no fault” divorce is a misnomer. Given that about 2/3 of divorce actions are filed by women, and that men almost always wind up paying and paying, a more proper name would be Men’s Fault divorce.

That might explain why the risk of suicide goes way up for men in the process or aftermath of divorce, while it does not change at all for women. Imagine any other social construct that led to women’s deaths while not affecting men? Feminists would be screaming from the rooftops.

Thanks. The way you deal with folks like Julie is with rhetoric. You go straight at them using their own tactics of rhetoric, hyperbole, appeals to emotion, etc. Never use logic or reason or dialectic with such people. It’s wasted, and you won’t change their minds anyway.

This is why I came straight out of the gate at her and held up a mirror. Anyone who favors no fault divorce hates men. Anyone who wants egalitarian “marriage” (an oxymoron if ever there was one) hates men and women. Anyone who likes and wants feminism hates women, because feminism already has severely damaged, if not destroyed, the ability of women to marry well.

Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
They are acknowledging the innate beauty of the feminine and trying to tie it to feminism – which tells women being masculine is the only virtue, for females.